M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.196 OF 2018 (Arising out of order dated 25.07.2018 passed in Case.No.1208/2012 by District Commission, Indore no.1)

1. SMT.PRATIBHA CHOUKSEY, 2. JITENDRA CHOUKSEY BOTH R/O 76, MANGAL NAGAR, BEHIND BHARAT PETROL PUMP, SUKHLIYA, INDORE. … APPELLANTS.

Versus

1. BHANDARI HOSPITAL, THROUGH MANAGER – MANOJ CHOUDHARY, 23/2, PARDESHIPURA, INDORE.

2. DR.SMT.MANJUSHRI BHANDARI, 23/2, PARDESHIPURA, INDORE.

3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE KANCHAN APARTMENT, 18/1 OLD PALASIA, A.B.ROAD, INDORE. .… RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE DR.SRIKANT PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Ms.Kalpana Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Pragya Sharma, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2.

None present for respondent no.3.

O R D E R (Passed on .06.2025)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This is an appeal by the complainants / appellants directed against the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore No.1 (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.1208/2012, whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by them.

2. The complainants / appellants had filed the complaint before the District Commission on the ground that complainant no.1 had undergone a tubectomy surgery in the opposite party no.1 – Bhandari Hospital, which was performed by opposite party no.2 – doctor on 08.07.2010. Rs.14,000/- were spent by the complainants / appellants for the surgery. Despite the fact that tubectomy operation was done, complainant no.1 conceived and the same was confirmed on 06.09.2011, when her pregnancy test turned positive. She therefore, alleged deficiency in service against the opposite parties / respondents.

3. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties no.1 and 2, jointly or severally, to pay Rs.14,000/- as expenses occurred in surgery, to the complainant, alongwith compensation of Rs.11,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/-.

4. Heard. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the complainants / appellants argued that the District Commission has awarded nominal compensation considering the deficiency in service committed on part of the opposite parties / respondents. Clearly, the surgery was not conducted appropriately, due to which complainant no.1 conceived and had to undergo another child birth, for which she was not prepared. On this ground it is prayed that the impugned award be enhanced.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties / respondents argued that there is no 100% success rate in tubectomy operation. The complainant no.1 had an opportunity to terminate the pregnancy if she was not prepared for another child birth. No negligence or deficiency in service is established on the part of opposite parties / respondents in the instant matter and therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed.

7. As we carefully go through the record of the District Commission and the impugned order, we observe that the District Commission has observed that there is no 100% success rate in case of sterilization operations. But however, considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, the District Commission has directed the opposite parties / respondents to refund the expenses which we incurred in the operation.

8. There is no appeal by the opposite parties / respondents against the impugned order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of an opinion that there is no ground for enhancement of the impugned award. Hence, we decline to interfere with the directions issued by the District Commission.

9. As there is no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

10. No order as to costs.

(Dr.Srikant Pandey) [Dr.(Mrs)Monika Malik]

Presiding Member Member

Sangeeta

APPEAL NO.196/201